We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
On a friend’s Facebook page I left the following comment about the claim of the writer Abi Wilkinson (in the Guardian!) that inheritance should be confiscated by government to fund the UK’s welfare state. What could possibly go wrong?
I wrote:
The hostility to inheritance also comes from a mistaken sense of fairness. As Robert Nozick argued in Anarchy, State and Utopia (I quote from memory), people wrongly think life resembles an athletics race, where the racers compete to hit the finishing line. As a result, those “lucky” athletes endowed by nature/god whatever with stronger muscles etc must be handicapped by having weights in their shoes, for example. Just as a child of rich parents must be deliberately held back to give poor kids a more “fair” chance of winning. But as Nozick said, life isn’t like that. It is about people exchanging goods, services and ideas with one another. There’s no fixed end-point to which we are all racing.
Also, the idea that there is some “prize” that humans compete for implies that someone or some entity has created that “prize” in the first place. But that’s smuggling in a sort of communitarian assumption into the actions of individuals. In an open society, the prizes on offer are varied and multiply constantly.
I should add that the second section of Nozick’s renowned book dissects and ultimately rejects forced redistribution for egalitarian or other forms of “patterned” notions of justice, and he robustly defends what he calls an “entitlement” concept of justice.
One of the approaches that the late Prof. Nozick used was the thought experiment, such as the example referenced above about a fictitious athletics race in which the entrants are hampered/favoured to make the race more “even”, and then assuming that society in general should be like this. A race, held by people who know the rules and seek to abide by them, is not like an open society. “Open” is the key word here: there is no single end to which persons are heading, such as winning the race.
And yet a lot of the metaphors one comes across around discussions around equality, including equality of opportunity as well as outcome, seem to borrow, perhaps unwittingly, from this “race competition” worldview. To give another example, I remember reading some months ago about a university professor (Warwick) who suggested that when parents read stories to their children, this is a form of privilege. This also plays to the idea that life has a fixed end-measure of success, so that anyone giving a value to someone else is giving the latter an unfair “head start” on someone else. It would require a State to exercise totalitarian control of our actions from the moment we wake up to go to sleep lest our actions unfairly advantage/hamper someone in the “race” they are considered, by this worldview, to be on. (It also, by the way, shows that today’s Higher Ed. is full of certifiable fools and worse.)
On a related note, Thomas Sowell is good on this sort of topic. His book, A Conflict Of Visions, is an example.
Update: The UK journalist Lewis Goodall – he appeared on LBC the other day – says inheritance should be confiscated. No ifs, no buts. His argument is that no-one should have any wealth they haven’t “earned”. But that takes one down some very murky philosophical paths. We did not “earn” the good fortune to have been born in the current era, with its modern healthcare, high-speed travel and technical marvels. We could have been born in the Dark Ages, for instance. We did not “earn” this or that. We haven’t “earned” our genes, or for that matter, been “punished” for them, either. They just are. An inheritor is entitled in the narrowest sense of that word to X that is handed down because the person handing it down was the legitimate owner of it.
As Andrew Lilico in the Spectator argues (paywall, sorry), taxes on inheritance are attempts to block people from using their property as they choose. But what’s the point for many people in amassing significant wealth if they cannot transfer it to their nearest and dearest? Also, if the likes of Goodall claim that they are for capitalism, they cannot decide that this or that form of wealth is “unearned” and have the State seize it. The acquisition and transfer of property is an embedded feature of a free society.
As ever, F A Hayek was excellent on this sort of topic. See “Equality, Value and Merit”.
There’s a pattern: the foolishness unfolding under the Starmer government often gestated under the previous Conservative ones. The Online Safety Act is probably the most egregious example (although some Tories attacked it at the time, to no avail). Another might be that the UK embarked on the idea of offloading the Chagos Islands – a strategic blunder that may yet be countered by the Trump administration – under James Cleverly (then foreign minister). (Cleverly has, with some level of brass neck, since denounced the Chagos fiasco.)
Another example is creating a football regulator. The UK pioneered football (aka soccer) more than a century ago, and it has become a global phenomenon. The English Premier League is a big and profitable brand (judging by all the people I see watching games on TV when I am on business trips in Singapore, New York or Dubai). Yes, there have been controversies about players’ taxes, and crowd behaviour. But that’s what HM Revenue & Customs and the police are there for. But apparently the “beautiful game” requires supervision from a regulator. The usual warnings about “regulatory capture” apply, and one assumes that Conservatives might have been aware of such a risk. But no. The former administration proposed it. And unsurprisingly, the incoming Labour government liked the idea, because it likes regulation almost as an end in itself.
In the fag-end of the last government, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt signalled that if re-elected, he would scrap the UK’s resident non-domicile tax system and replace it with a residency-based system. Hunt probably thought he was being clever in trying to “shoot the fox” of Labour, which has railed about non-doms for years. But he could have changed the narrative and challenged the economic illiteracy of those who want to hammer wealthy foreigners. Instead he conceded to Labour the terms of debate, which a good general never does.
Another case: shotgun licensing. The UK now requires that an application for a shotgun requires two referees, not one as before. This move was initiated under the past Tory government, reacting to a case of a shooting in Plymouth, southwest UK. While designed to stop problems, it also makes it that much harder for a farmer, for example, to obtain one to shoot game and vermin with such a weapon.
And so on and so on. Hence why you hear people refer to Labour and the Conservatives as a sort of “uni-party”. Even when that is a bit unfair, because differences genuinely exist, there is an edge to the criticism because it does speak to a genuine problem. The Tories contain a lot of people who are at base paternalists in how they think of the role of government, and also share some of the same post-colonial cringes of those on the Labour side. There is also, arguably, a failure of nerve and self-confidence that goes very deep.
“Middle Class Britain is bulking with aging radicals who are desperate to relive the heady days of their youths protesting the Vietnam War or patriarchy or capitalism. They possess an abundance of the resources necessary for the life of demonstrating — spare time, spare cash and, having left the job market, a willingness to acquire a criminal record.”
– Adrian Wooldridge
There’s the point made a few years ago by P J O’Rourke that there is a reason why centre-right folk tend to avoid demonstrations – they’ve got jobs to do and they are intelligent enough to be able to sign a petition, write to their MP, and considerate enough – mostly – to avoid irritating ordinary folk going about their business. There are a few exceptions if the cause is seen as big enough. In my lifetime, I recall that exception to the rule: the Countryside Alliance one in the Blair years, where the ostensible cause was to protect the hunting of foxes with hounds (you can still shoot them with a rifle, by the way). And the rural angle returned when farmers recently drove their tractors into Whitehall to protest against inheritance tax on their businesses. But the vast majority of demos are for banning things like fossil fuels, and supporting enemies of Israel. (I haven’t come across many demos about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine lately.)
“Climate policy has been steered into a political cul-de-sac by bad science and bad policy. The bad science can be found in the UN-FCCC’s definition of climate change that is at odds with the scientifically-accurate definition of climate change of the IPCC. The bad policy results from the use of global average temperatures as a proxy for human flourishing, making cost-benefit analyses seem unnecessary or even unhelpful to the political cause.”
– Roger Pielke Jnr.
“Markets are not efficient because we assume they are; they become efficient through a discovery process in which profit and loss guide innovation, reduce inefficiency and generate wealth. This process is what makes markets a better alternative to the state. Implicitly, these critics assume the state can correct market imperfections – ignoring that it suffers from its own limits of knowledge and benevolence. If they judged the state by the same standard they apply to markets, the picture would change: both have flaws, but only one has a built-in mechanism for improvement.”
– Mani Basharzad, writing at CapX on the often dire predictions economists have made, such as their mockery of Argentina’s reforms, or the old claims from the early 1980s that the Thatcher policy mix could not work.
The author of this article has good things to say about the limitations of the neoclassical school in economics, and the failure to understand that competition is a discovery process. Entrepreneurs make money precisely by acting on the basis of incomplete data and in the hope they get things more right than wrong. And when they succeed, or indeed fail, it generates new knowledge. One of the problems for a centrally planned economy is that in epistemological terms, it is barren. A point for those who see AI as creating some sort of fix for socialism to bear in mind.
The UK’s recent seemingly modest agreement with France over illegal migrants crossing the English Channel prompted this article at the CityAM news service:
Clearly this is an entirely inadequate response to the Channel crisis: five per cent of current numbers of illegal migrants, who are themselves only five per cent of overall immigration. The idea that this will move the dial on an issue which is now regularly cited as one of the public’s biggest concerns is positively outlandish.
But it is also a patently and laughably poor deal for Britain. It bears comparison with paying Mauritius billions of pounds to induce it to accept sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory, or in domestic terms awarding huge, above-inflation public sector pay deals with no conditions attached. I sometimes wonder whether civil servants now check that the Prime Minister still has his loose change, watch and shoelaces when he returns from the negotiating table.
I suppose the question that also lingers about Keir Starmer is this: is he “Sir Shifty” (to borrow the phrase of former Sun political editor, Trevor Kavanagh) or is he “Sir Stumbler” (Bruce Anderson)? Is he a berk or a knave?
(Correction: It is Trevor Kavanagh, not Patrick. My berk moment.)
There is a story in the UK media (see here for the Daily Mail version) about how local residents in the Bournemouth area of southern England have banded together to form “vigilante” groups – working with local police, it should be noted – to deal with crime.
When temperatures hit the mid-30s last month, brawls broke out in broad daylight, while a woman in her late teens was raped in a beachside public toilet just days later leading to the arrest of a man who has now been released on bail.
And many residents have had enough, with more than 200 volunteers including security professionals and first aiders signing up to the Safeguard Force to tackle the tourist hotspot’s descent into lawlessness.
The group, set up by local businessman Gary Bartlett, aims to ‘protect the most vulnerable in our town – especially women, children and the elderly’.
They have already raised more than £3,000 through a GoFundMe campaign to buy body cameras, stab vests and radios.
It would be easy to focus on the continued degradation and decline of the UK, the nastiness, nihilism, scruffiness and genuine shitty state of it all. Reeves. Starmer, etc. But I want to take a slightly different tack.
The tack – hauling in the mainsail, lads! – is that this shows that when pushed sufficiently, people can and do band together to bring certain outcomes about, and seek to frustrate others. A few weeks ago I re-read, after many years, Alexis de Tocqueville’s famous book, Democracy in America. He noted the enthusiasm with which American citizens formed associations of all kinds, from the frivolous to the deadly serious. Around the time he wrote that book (in two volumes, the first was completed in the 1830s, the second in the 1840s) the UK had gone through the experiment, under Sir Robert Peel, of forming official police forces, starting with the Metropolitan Police, aka “The Met”. His principles of how a police force should operate are still referred to. In the 18th and 19th centuries there were societies for the “prosecution of felons” – a classic case of a private provider of a “public good”.
There is, in most developed countries, a sort of social compact: The State will take on the role of seeking to catch and deter criminals, and in return, the citizens will abjure the freedom to take the law into their own hands. This compact has to work to a certain level of effectiveness. When police become distracted by politically motivated rubbish, such as “non-crime hate incidents” and so forth, and morale is damaged (many coppers have left the forces, because they are angry about such nonsense), you get a problem. Crime clear-up rates are low; I come across complaints that people rarely bother to log crimes out of cynicism that not much will be done. And then there are worries that crimes against persons and property appear to be treated more leniently than fashionable concerns. Result: the compact is fraying to the point of breakdown.
And so we have what is happening in Bournemouth. This will spread. I can expect to read more articles about people learning self-defence, increased community patrols, and controversies about what the limits are in being able to enforce laws. (It is worth remembering that at this point, it is legally difficult for UK citizens to use lethal force in self-defence.)
Nature abhors a vacuum, in public policy as much as anything else. There are going to be consequences. Edmund Burke’s “little platoons” are going to be more in evidence.
Over at Bloomberg, columnist Matthew Brooker notes that a mix of policies have caused London’s housebuilding sector to almost stop.
Homebuilding in London has all but ground to a halt. The capital is on track to deliver less than 5% of its annual target of 88,000 homes with half the year gone, by far the worst performance in two decades. Such a collapse in the UK’s largest and richest city would be a poor omen for economic growth and productivity at the best of times. For this to be occurring under a one-year-old Labour government that arrived in office promising a generational uplift in housing supply is extraordinary.
The figures almost defy belief. Housing starts have fallen by more than 90% compared with the financial year ended in 2023, official data from the Greater London Authority show.
The reasons:
Why is this happening and what can be done? The words “perfect storm” crop up frequently. A thicket of interlocking factors is at play, some of which have built up over years. On the supply side, the immediate trigger is the creation of a new Building Safety Regulator, or BSR, with a set of more stringent requirements for high-rise buildings in the wake of the 2017 Grenfell fire, which killed 72 people. Delays in approvals have compounded post-pandemic challenges of inflated construction costs and higher interest rates.
Meanwhile, successive tax changes, some dating back more than a decade, have driven away offshore investors, according to Molior founder Tim Craine. Developers build only in response to demand, he points out. Investors who buy apartments “off plan” before they are complete play a crucial role in financing construction and providing a signal of likely end-demand. Their declining presence has raised speculative risks and undermined the financial viability of projects.
Former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne targeted a series of tax measures at buy-to-let investors in the belief that they were driving up house prices and squeezing out first-time buyers. The trouble is that the private-led investment model is intimately connected to the delivery of affordable housing for deprived communities. London boroughs grant planning permission for apartment complexes on condition that developers designate a portion, typically 35%, as affordable. These are bought by housing associations that then sell or rent them out at discounts to the market. If there are no private buyers, there will be no affordable housing either.
The article makes no reference to the current immigration issue in the UK, but it is fair to say that even without large net inflows of people to the UK, the low level of house building and new residential accommodation is a problem if we want a refurbished, modern housing stock. Add in the immigration issue, then we have a crisis. The current UK government made much of housing when it was elected last July. The data for London is lamentable.
The article also reminded me of the planning dysfunction, among other things, that was identified as problems in last year’s major “Foundations” report into why UK seems unable to get anything built, and certainly erected on time, and on budget, these days.
“This [anti-abundance] mentality ultimately stems from the 1970s `Limits to Growth’ report, which predicted that natural resources would run out, prices would shoot through the roof, and there would be mass starvation.
“Reality has shown this to be bunk. Yet it lives on in decision-takers’ minds, reinforced by the belief that climate change requires a reduction in our global footprint as human beings and use less of everything. And it’s strengthened by a fundamentally elitist, snobbish mindset about economic growth, the view that growth is all about the hoi polloi buying more `stuff’ they don’t need, rather than what it is: the advancement of human possibility for all of us during our limited time on the planet.
“Look hard – actually you don’t need to look hard – and you see it everywhere. Consider the disdain for `cheap food’ and the moral panic about UPFs, surely a fabricated concept, and one whose principal benefit is psychological, allowing well-off politicians and campaigners to play Lady Bountiful telling ordinary voters how to eat. Think of the sneering at big cars, or worse still, people with more than one car, the suburban lifestyle, houses with gardens instead of egg-box flats, package holidays instead of leisurely eco-travel.
“Contemplate all the tedious lifestyle preaching, the hectoring of supermarkets about packaging, the determination to build houses with tiny windows and small rooms and then to ban air conditioning as it’s too damaging to the environment.”
– David Frost, Daily Telegraph.
Note: “UPFs” are ultra-processed foods, which now seem to have achieved the same Voldemort status as tobacco and booze.
Regarding the “abundance mindset” approach, I recommend this book, Fossil Future (2022), of a year or so ago by Alex Epstein. Another is Merchants of Despair, by Robert Zubrin. Last but not least is this book, written more than 25 years ago – The Intellectuals and The Masses – by John Carey. He shows how, from the 19th Century and into the 20th, a lot of supposedly clever people hated the rising prosperity of the broad mass of the public, not simply out of some concern for the natural world (much of which was sentimental bullshit), but because they hated people, and ultimately, themselves.
This interview by Peter McCormack of the energy expert Kathryn Porter, energy analyst and founder of Watt-Logic, is definitely worth watching.
Alex Tabarrok over at the Marginal Revolution blog has an interesting item that pushes back against the idea that the items we buy, such as clothes and household appliances such as electric toasters, fridges and vacuum cleaners, don’t last as long and that is something terrible and a fault of modern capitalism, yadda-yadda.
He concludes: “appliance durability hasn’t collapsed—it’s evolved to meet consumer demand. We’re not being ripped off. We are getting better products at better prices. Rising incomes have simply redefined what “better” means.”
One part of it, as Tabarrok said, is that the “Baumol Effect” shows that the cost of repairing stuff rises vs the cost of buying that new toaster, flat-screen TV or whatever. And that seems to make sense. I’ve also noticed with a lot of modern tech, it is less reparable. That is partly, I think, a function of moving to a digital from analogue world. I am just about old enough to remember how to service my first car, including changing the spark plugs on the engine, etc. Nowadays, the chance of maintaining a modern car engine rank alongside how I’d fix the human brain.
The MR post also cites this excellent and detailed Rachel Wharton article in the New York Times’ “Wirecutter” publication, which contests the idea that “planned obsolescence” – some fiendish business tactic – is the cause.
Read the article and you will learn a lot about the market for fridges. You will thank me later.
“If you can’t see it now, you never will. The sight of tens of thousands of people at Glastonbury yesterday joining in a spirited chant of ‘Death, death to the IDF’ was the sight of us officially becoming a very different country, I fear. One in which anti-Israel hysteria has so flawlessly rehabilitated Jew hatred that it has become unthinking, conformist, almost mundane. Something that Home Counties idiots can jive to before adjusting their hot pants and heading off to catch Charli XCX. Something that is broadcast by the BBC into millions of homes. The banality of the new anti-Semitism.
“Let’s not muck about here. When punk-rap duo Bob Vylan called for the killing of Israeli soldiers yesterday – as they warmed up the crowd at the West Holts Stage for every Israelophobe’s new favourite Irish rap trio, Kneecap – they weren’t opposing war. They were calling for war, and on the one army on Earth charged with protecting Jews from genocide. The army now at war with a jihadist cult that murdered, raped and kidnapped its way through an Israeli festival not unlike Glastonbury on 7 October 2023. The army that almost all Israelis are expected to serve in. Indeed, those making excuses for that sickening call-and-response yesterday hopefully don’t know that Hamas justifies killing Israeli civilians on the grounds that they are basically all tainted by national service. That they are all enemy combatants. Death, death to that IDF?
“Whether we got here by ignorance or conscious hatred is pretty much moot. The end result is British Jews – at Glasto or at home – watching thousands whoop as Jew-killing slogans are recited. Frontman Bobby Vylan also treated the crowd to a deranged rant about the indignities he suffered working for a ‘Zionist’ at a record label, because he had to listen to his boss talk favourably about Israel. I wonder if he knows that the vast majority of British Jews are Zionists. I wonder if he cares.”
– Tom Slater.
Pop concerts seem to prompt exhibitions of behaviour that can put markers in the ground for a culture, or – as we saw in Manchester Arena (UK, 2017), Bataclan and other attacks in Paris (2015) and in Israel on 7 October, 2023 – indicate the level of evil that Islamism represents, and a need to confront it.
The new book by Douglas Murray seems apposite.
What, if anything, should be done about the specifics at Glastonbury? Well, it seems that if there is a law around incitement and it should be enforced consistently, then there are grounds to deal with those principally involved in shouting these chants if they are deemed incitement to engage in violence. I guess if you’re in a band called “Kneecap”, it does rather tilt the scales of justice against you. Just saying.
I cannot be sure, but I’d be interested to know the demographics of the crowd, and what proportion are English and middle class, university educated, etc. I’d say quite a large chunk.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
